Carl%20Sagan%20-%20The%20Demon%20Haunted%20World
Carl%20Sagan%20-%20The%20Demon%20Haunted%20World Carl%20Sagan%20-%20The%20Demon%20Haunted%20World
THE DEMON-HAUNTED WORLD transforming discoveries in science, and either way you will be obstructing understanding and progress. Mere scepticism is not enough. At the same time, science requires the most vigorous and uncompromising scepticism, because the vast majority of ideas are simply wrong, and the only way to winnow the wheat from the chaff is by critical experiment and analysis. If you're open to the point of gullibility and have not a microgram of sceptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguish the promising ideas from the worthless ones. Uncritically accepting every proffered notion, idea and hypothesis is tantamount to knowing nothing. Ideas contradict one another; only through sceptical scrutiny can we decide among them. Some ideas really are better than others. The judicious mix of these two modes of thought is central to the success of science. Good scientists do both. On their own, talking to themselves, they churn up many new ideas, and criticize them systematically. Most of the ideas never make it to the outside world. Only those that pass a rigorous self-filtration make it out to be criticized by the rest of the scientific community. Because of this dogged mutual and self-criticism, and the proper reliance on experiment as the arbiter between contending hypotheses, many scientists tend to be diffident about describing their own sense of wonder at the dawning of a wild surmise. This is a pity, because these rare exultant moments demystify and humanize the scientific endeavour. No one can be entirely open or completely sceptical. We all must draw the line somewhere.* An ancient Chinese proverb advises, 'Better to be too credulous than too sceptical', but this is from an extremely conservative society in which stability was much more prized than freedom and where the rulers had a powerful vested interest in not being challenged. Most scientists, I believe, would say, 'Better to be too sceptical than too credulous'. But neither is easy. Responsible, thoroughgoing, rigorous scepticism requires a hardnosed habit of thought that takes practice and training to master. Credulity - I think a better word here is * And in some cases scepticism would be simply silly, as for example in learning to spell. 288
The Marriage of Scepticism and Wonder 'openness' or 'wonder' - does not come easily either. If we really are to be open to counterintuitive ideas in physics or social organization or anything else, we must grasp those ideas. It means nothing to be open to a proposition we don't understand. Both scepticism and wonder are skills that need honing and practice. Their harmonious marriage within the mind of every schoolchild ought to be a principal goal of public education. I'd love to see such a domestic felicity portrayed in the media, television especially: a community of people really working the mix - full of wonder, generously open to every notion, dismissing nothing except for good reason, but at the same time, and as second nature, demanding stringent standards of evidence; and these standards applied with at least as much rigour to what they hold dear as to what they are tempted to reject with impunity. 289
- Page 249 and 250: Antiscience appreciate humour in so
- Page 251 and 252: Antiscience obviously an important
- Page 253 and 254: Antiscience Russian stooges; Belgia
- Page 255 and 256: Antiscience records. You cannot eve
- Page 257 and 258: Antiscience demythologizing the pro
- Page 259 and 260: Antiscience ideas; but it has littl
- Page 261 and 262: Antiscience cut-throat practices by
- Page 263 and 264: Antiscience courage. In The Vavilov
- Page 265 and 266: 15 Newton's Sleep May God keep us f
- Page 267 and 268: Newton's Sleep wishes, is this the
- Page 269 and 270: Newton's Sleep it is the inalterabl
- Page 271 and 272: Newton's Sleep What intelligible ac
- Page 273 and 274: Newton's Sleep Nature. Otherwise we
- Page 275 and 276: Newton's Sleep It's been a long tim
- Page 277 and 278: Newton's Sleep past errors, as the
- Page 279 and 280: 16 When Scientists Know Sin The min
- Page 281 and 282: When Scientists Know Sin Hungarian-
- Page 283 and 284: When Scientists Know Sin The global
- Page 285 and 286: When Scientists Know Sin for the ci
- Page 287 and 288: When Scientists Know Sin obscure gr
- Page 289 and 290: 17 The Marriage of Scepticism and W
- Page 291 and 292: The Marriage of Scepticism and Wond
- Page 293 and 294: The Marriage of Scepticism and Wond
- Page 295 and 296: The Marriage of Scepticism and Wond
- Page 297 and 298: The Marriage of Scepticism and Wond
- Page 299: The Marriage of Scepticism and Wond
- Page 303 and 304: The Wind Makes Dust physics class.
- Page 305 and 306: The Wind Makes Dust theologians are
- Page 307 and 308: The Wind Makes Dust This more or le
- Page 309 and 310: The Wind Makes Dust of an eland hoo
- Page 311 and 312: The Wind Makes Dust mode of explana
- Page 313 and 314: No Such Thing as a Dumb Question wh
- Page 315 and 316: No Such Thing as a Dumb Question wh
- Page 317 and 318: No Such Thing as a Dumb Question Go
- Page 319 and 320: No Such Thing as a Dumb Question wo
- Page 321 and 322: No Such Thing as a Dumb Question un
- Page 323 and 324: No Such Thing as a Dumb Question at
- Page 325 and 326: No Such Thing as a Dumb Question fo
- Page 327 and 328: No Such Thing as a Dumb Question en
- Page 329 and 330: No Such Thing as a Dumb Question Sc
- Page 331 and 332: House on Fire There, in this burnin
- Page 333 and 334: House on Fire • Around 33 hours f
- Page 335 and 336: House on Fire • The teachers and
- Page 337 and 338: House on Fire about the football te
- Page 339 and 340: House on Fire little we rely on our
- Page 341 and 342: House on Fire Smithsonian's Nationa
- Page 343 and 344: House on Fire again and carted off
- Page 345 and 346: 21 The Path to Freedom* We must not
- Page 347 and 348: The Path to Freedom he ordered Soph
- Page 349 and 350: The Path to Freedom to undermine de
THE DEMON-HAUNTED WORLD<br />
transforming discoveries in science, and either way you will be<br />
obstructing understanding and progress. Mere scepticism is not<br />
enough.<br />
At the same time, science requires the most vigorous and<br />
uncompromising scepticism, because the vast majority of ideas are<br />
simply wrong, and the only way to winnow the wheat from the<br />
chaff is by critical experiment and analysis. If you're open to the<br />
point of gullibility and have not a microgram of sceptical sense in<br />
you, then you cannot distinguish the promising ideas from the<br />
worthless ones. Uncritically accepting every proffered notion,<br />
idea and hypothesis is tantamount to knowing nothing. Ideas<br />
contradict one another; only through sceptical scrutiny can we<br />
decide among them. Some ideas really are better than others.<br />
The judicious mix of these two modes of thought is central to<br />
the success of science. Good scientists do both. On their own,<br />
talking to themselves, they churn up many new ideas, and criticize<br />
them systematically. Most of the ideas never make it to the<br />
outside world. Only those that pass a rigorous self-filtration make<br />
it out to be criticized by the rest of the scientific community.<br />
Because of this dogged mutual and self-criticism, and the<br />
proper reliance on experiment as the arbiter between contending<br />
hypotheses, many scientists tend to be diffident about describing<br />
their own sense of wonder at the dawning of a wild surmise. This is<br />
a pity, because these rare exultant moments demystify and<br />
humanize the scientific endeavour.<br />
No one can be entirely open or completely sceptical. We all<br />
must draw the line somewhere.* An ancient Chinese proverb<br />
advises, 'Better to be too credulous than too sceptical', but this is<br />
from an extremely conservative society in which stability was<br />
much more prized than freedom and where the rulers had a<br />
powerful vested interest in not being challenged. Most scientists, I<br />
believe, would say, 'Better to be too sceptical than too credulous'.<br />
But neither is easy. Responsible, thoroughgoing, rigorous scepticism<br />
requires a hardnosed habit of thought that takes practice and<br />
training to master. Credulity - I think a better word here is<br />
* And in some cases scepticism would be simply silly, as for example in learning<br />
to spell.<br />
288